LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Concerns that AMD may beat NVIDIA to the 28nm punch weigh on shares.
Read more.Concerns that AMD may beat NVIDIA to the 28nm punch weigh on shares.
"Concerns that AMD may beat NVIDIA to the 28nm punch weigh on shares."
I doubt it's that - AMD are small fry and the areas they compete in over GPU probably aren't that significant. IMHO it's more likely to be on going concern over NVIDIA high volume products, given the squeeze coming in especially from Intel with their onboard graphics. NVIDIA need to maximise their revenue from other areas given that's effectively dead now, so it's what's happening for tablets/smartphones and next gen consoles that are the areas of interest. AMD already got the Wii U contract, I've a feeling Microsoft were quite happy with AMD in the X360, so keeping with them would be natural, that leaves Sony as the major customer to win.
All those could well be contributing factors, but I'm not sure I agree that AMD qualifies as 'small fry'.Originally Posted by kalniel
Well, true, it's a question of relativity, but as a whole company AMD are smaller than NVIDIA, despite the fact NVIDIA is almost entirely GPU, while AMD are CPU+GPU+Chipset. So in the GPU arena AMD are substantially smaller.
That said, they achieved greater PC market share in Q1 than NVIDIA for GPUs, despite being much smaller.
its also execution. AMD still rolled out 6series despite 32nm getting canceled. nv had to suck it hard and squeeze fermi out on a too high a process. Nv already whining about 28nm and its TSMC's fault. I dont hear AMD or others baying for blood. points to NV screwing up their engineering again.
time to get popcorn again and listen to the "ITS NOT OUR FAULT" brigade again.
AMD is a much bigger company than Nvidia. Twice as large almost by number of employees and revenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd
Last edited by Jimbo75; 11-07-2011 at 02:27 PM.
Well isn't that interesting? I always assumed Nvidia were a much bigger company - I don't know why, it's not like AMD isn't competitive in the GPU arena...
Currently studying: Electronic Engineering and Artificial Intelligence at the University of Southampton.
NVIDIA does still have a bigger market cap - twice as big, in fact.
You must have known this was coming.
Market Capitalisation DOES NOT represent the size of a firm.
The problem is that it is mearly the number of shares in issue * the price of a share. This doesn't really represent that much.
An example would be a firm which didn't pay dividends, it might be half the size, a faction as profitable, but without paying anything back to the investors the stock value mearly grows.
If a company pays big dividends their market cap falls.
Hopefully this helps explain why I get fed up with it as a crude valuation technique. Its not, it doesn't include DOs or well anything really.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I'm not saying it does - some measures of relative valuation were being chucked around and I wanted to throw another into the mix. Without an indication of what proportion of the company's shares are publicly traded it is indeed a very crude valuation technique, but it's quick and easy and provides some indication of what a company would cost to buy.
I'm afraid I don't get your 'no dividends equals higher market cap' analogy at all, sorry.
P/E is also crude, but provides an indication of investor sentiment towards a company. The fact that a metric is crude doesn't invalidate it.
The dividends thing, I must confess I always expect a stock which doesn't pay dividends to be more suspetable to a bubble effect. I think that taxing them was bloody stupid too, and I don't like mature growth stocks.... </rant> onto the subject.
Lets take Apple. Apple have a high market cap, Apple don't pay divs, Apple have a big pile of cash, which would make them confortably in the top 5 hedge funds in europe. Think of it that way, they are sitting on so much cash they really must find a way to manage it (now, plenty of examples of firms doing good things with their cash pile for their long term goals, Porsche been the example that springs to mind most), but if they don't really do anything with it, it can lead to an overinflated valuation of the stock, an almost Ponzi style situation but without the money being paid out.
If you have a firm which is far more profitable, but pays out large dividends with money it does not need right now, then it will have a lower market cap (as after you've paid the div, the share price will drop, because the expected value of it is less).
As such someone who pays big regular divs, will have a lower market cap than someone who sits on money, despite being just as "large" or "important" or "dominating".
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I suspect AMD's huge debt is having a sizable effect on their market cap in the same way Apple's massive cash pile affects theirs.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote